Defending the Rule of Law: Lessons from the International Law Fellows Network

Trump’s attacks on law firms, lawyers, and the judiciary provided an urgency to our session in Salzburg. Panelists traced the constitutional vulnerabilities exposed by the Covington and Perkins orders, and legal experts from across disciplines and career stages spoke candidly—under Chatham House Rule—about the pressures already facing the federal judiciary, private practice, and corporate counsel. International lawyers shared their perspectives on similar attacks in foreign jurisdictions and offered insights on best practices in response. Over coffee in the Great Hall between sessions, the participants got to know each other: We shared our views on how the orders would impact our own work, firms, and clients while reflecting on the career paths that had gotten us to that point. A degree of uncertainty hung over these conversations as the extent to which the legal profession could weather the presidential assault was unclear.

While we were still in Salzburg, news broke that Skadden Arps had negotiated a settlement to forestall prospective executive orders. Paul Weiss had similarly capitulated in the preceding days. The timing of both settlements underscored the gravity of our discussions and the need to publicly voice solidarity with the targeted firms as a bulwark against the orders’ divide-and-conquer approach. Participants and panelists also noted the stark choices facing leadership at those firms who had to weigh commercial survival against institutional principle.

Against this backdrop, five working groups of Salzburg Global Fellows collaborated to draft The Salzburg Statement on the Critical Role of Lawyers in Safeguarding the Rule of Law. We were mindful that the text was taking shape amid very real attacks on legal independence that threatened not only law firms but also the clients they serve and the independence of the judiciary itself. We endeavored to draft a statement that did not treat the rule of law as a theoretical principle, but a lived reality that had to be defended. 

To this end, we wrote: “The world is at a dangerous inflection point: If the continued degradation of the Rule of Law is not addressed, we face an uncertain future likely without the values, opportunities, and rights we hold dear.” To defend against this threat, we called on actors across society to take specific actions, but we made sure to call upon law firms to refuse, “individually and collectively, to capitulate to demands that are unlawful and/or would degrade the Rule of Law” and to stand “in solidarity with other law firms facing pressure and adverse action.”  

What we produced was not meant to be aspirational, but a response to a specific threat intended to bolster lawyers and others in the profession who already felt vulnerable under political pressure and attacks.

Upon returning to the United States, I hoped the wider legal profession would push back. That hope was soon vindicated. Associates and partners began resigning in protest, including a college friend of mine, Rachel Cohen, whose public departure from Skadden explicitly cited the firm’s decision to bend to political coercion as the reason she could not continue there. Within weeks, Cohen and other former Big Law attorneys joined forces with veteran litigators to establish new boutiques dedicated to clients at heightened risk of government retaliation. In our Statement, we had written that lawyers have “an ethical and professional duty to preserve” the rule of law. Just weeks after writing those words, we were seeing them made real by lawyers from across the profession.

Litigation also followed. Several targeted firms challenged the executive orders in federal court, and by late April, judges had struck down the orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block, respectively. These rulings echoed the Salzburg Statement’s call to courts to uphold “the rule of law, even in the face of pressure, threats, and intimidation.” Meanwhile, the firms that had negotiated settlements faced other consequences: internal dissent, reputational damage, and the departure of talented lawyers who refused to remain in a compromised institution.

Coming from a career in human rights law focused on arbitrary detention cases and responsible business conduct, I originally assumed that most Fellows attending the Salzburg Global session would share a similar focus. When I reviewed the participant list and saw specialties such as international arbitration, investor-state dispute settlement, mergers and acquisitions, and regulatory compliance, I briefly wondered how a conversation about the rule of law would resonate across such different fields. Once in Salzburg, however, late-night discussions at the Bierstube and walks around the lake quickly dispelled that doubt. Their accounts reinforced the idea that protecting the rule of law is not confined to constitutional litigation or human rights work; it is equally relevant in drafting contracts, conducting audits, and negotiating cross-border disputes.

The experience broadened my perspective on possible career trajectories in my own work and, more importantly, forged a network of friends across countries, practice areas, and backgrounds. Since returning home, several Fellows have offered to collaborate on pro bono matters, discuss career trajectories, and even agreed to speak to my current class of law firm interns. I am grateful to both the IBA and Salzburg Global for creating the opportunity to meet this cohort of young lawyers and to be a part of the network it has created. 

It’s only been a few months since our meeting in Salzburg, but the trajectory of President Trump’s attacks on the rule of law is clear: His executive overreach encountered resistance in the forms of judicial accountability and lawyers who refused to abide by capitulation. While we can view these actions in retrospect with approval, in the moment they did not feel inevitable. They happened because lawyers chose not to remain silent and to defend the rule of law in their practice area and institution.

The Salzburg Statement we drafted reminds us that “lawyers have a unique obligation and opportunity to defend and strengthen the Rule of Law as a bedrock of a just, prosperous, and sustainable global order.” The events of spring 2025 reinforce that this obligation cannot remain theoretical. The rule of law in America and elsewhere survives—or falls—largely on the courage of its lawyers. Whether resigning from comfortable posts, founding new firms, or drafting a collective statement or public letter, each of us in the legal profession must decide how to use our position and voice to support the rule of law and defend those at risk of persecution. The relationships forged in Salzburg give me optimism that the profession can continue to meet that responsibility.